While I agree with some of the arguments found in answers to "This is not a site for peeving," I for one am in favor of contributors to EL&U airing at least some of their pet peeves. Their contributions serve not only to keep us informed and up to date, but also entertained and amused, which as JohnFx points out in his answer is not without merit.
To use discretion in our role as gatekeepers is admirable, but to censor all "peevish questions" is taking that role too far. Granted, to consider--when appropriate--each question on a case-by-case basis is good, but by the same token, to keep a question from being responded to makes all-important the criterion to exercise "due diligence," which I find onerous and unreasonable. Must every question be researched exhaustively before it's worthy of submission?
After all, EL&U contributors constitute a pretty eclectic group of English speakers. Their choices of, and contexts for, reading- and spoken material are sufficiently unique to make the airing of peeves a legitimate source of helpful information. I, for example, might be a fount of knowledge regarding newspapers and legal textbooks. Another person might be an expert on the language of television's talking-heads, and still another person might consider politicians' choices of words particularly worthy of skewering.
I'd welcome some lists of commonly-used words that raise the hackles of EL&U readers. Perhaps I use unknowingly some of them myself, to my writing's detriment. Isn't self-improvement one of the goals of EL&U?
In order to elicit some opinions as to whether or not I should submit some my pet peeves to the scrutiny of readers of the non-meta forum, I'll first run just a few of my peeves past the readers of the meta-forum:
the excessive use of ICONIC, particularly in periodicals and on TV
the use of LITERALLY instead of VIRTUALLY ("They were laughing so hard, they were
literally rolling in the aisles.")
the use of RHETORIC in an almost exclusively negative context and with a negative
connotation ("The last thing we need now is rhetoric; what we need is a debate rooted in reality")--as if rhetoric is not part of reality.
If Aristotle was correct, rhetoric is a neutral word, which he defines as "the faculty of determining in a given case the available means of persuasion." How, then, can rhetoric exist apart from from reality if it is simply a person's ability to use what s/he has found to be persuasive in a given context?
In public discourse, rhetoric is the most valuable component, despite a given rhetor's failure both to craft a speech intelligently and to persuade auditors (such as the above person who uses the term RHETORIC negatively). What is needed today is less use of the ad hominem argument--an attack against the speaker or writer--and more use of better-researched, more-accurate, and more-persuasive arguments against the "other guy's 'mere' rhetoric." Now THAT is the reality of the situation.